On Fri, Mar 20, 2009 at 12:15:53AM +0100, Kurt Van Dijck wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 06:09:33PM +0100, Nico Golde wrote: > > Hi, > > * Kurt Van Dijck <[email protected]> [2009-03-19 17:53]: > > > I'm in the process of cross-compiling dwm. I understand the idea of > > > having a config.mk for this, but it is not the easiest. > > > Since I had to fix some other packets too, I learned myself to setup a > > > minimal autoconf. This allows one to do: > > > ./configure && make && make install > > > > > > Since dwm is distributed as a source package and not binary, I suspect > > > this can mean a serious improvement. > > > > EPIC FAIL! > > Please read the FAQ: http://suckless.org/common/faq > I agree as a developer. a 'config.mk' approach, I understand. > I didn't even walk all FAQ's to get the job done :-) > > As a user, I'm not that convinced. ./configure is easier to explain that > Makefile. > > What I learned from the automake/autoconf docs is: > 1) autoconf allows easy test, suitable for users. > 2) ./configure script is big :-( > 3) automake starts the real mess, using libtool etc. > > I chose (for this & other projects) to stick to my own hand-crafted > Makefiles, supported by autoconf. > Some advantages of this approach: > * The core Makefile(.in) is still readable as developer. > * applying different --prefix, --host or DESTDIR gets easier.
I got to disagree here, since I made dwm port for crux. You only have to take a short look at the slim Makefile and you got your answer: make DESTDIR=$somedir PREFIX=/usr MANPREFIX=/usr/man install At least this doesn't look complicated to me. bye richi [1] http://repo.or.cz/w/namenlos-ports.git?a=tree;f=dwm;hb=HEAD -- quoting guide: http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html
pgpi2VgdeHP0s.pgp
Description: PGP signature
